Just digging the hole deeper with your weak deflection. If someone is not required to sell, then they don't have to sell, period. A fire sale doesn't even enter the picture--selling is not being forced. And, you have no idea what that theoretical property is so you couldn't possibly know if that asset is a declining asset. Even if it theoretically was a declining asset on paper, that doesn't mean the spouse need automatically sell it. While it might be a declining asset at that moment in time, that can change in the future--and it's still shelter, it's still a roof over the spouse's head, whether the value at the moment is going up, down, or staying level. It's also still a potential income earner for the spouse as a rental. I've mentioned several times that my Thai in-laws all have rental properties to help fund their retirements--this would also be an option for the spouse. You need to think more broadly, and more long-term. Yes, I have posted in very general terms about foreigners leaving property to their spouses. Note the 'very general terms'. What a foreigner, whom I don't know, actually leaves to a spouse, whom I also don't know, and what the spouse actually does with the inheritance, is, as I said, 'no concern to me'. Why on earth would it be? Maybe explain exactly how that is 'rubbish'.